The Urantia Book

[McCulloch]

Yes, there is the eye witness account [to Jesus' resurrection] given in the Urantia Book.

Bro Dave has put forward the Book as eyewitness testimony to support the allegation that Jesus was raised from the dead. Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?

[McCulloch]

I find myself in an unusual position. I have to agree with Woody. Thus far in the debate, I have found few points that we agree upon. Woody came here with the idea that it was a place where he would have an opportunity to "attempt to share this good thing that you know you have with others". It is not. As the address and the title of this site point out rather clearly, this is a debate site. Woody did not seem expect to have to defend his position with evidence or to have his position challenged by skeptics.

So, to all you Truthbook and UB readers, welcome . But heed Woody's warning. If you have come here, like Woody, to evangelize and share with us this wonderful thing you claim to have found, be prepared to be challenged to support your opinions with objective evidence, reason and logic. It is called debate. If your ideas come through the crucible unscathed, we will all be able to celebrate.

Hello to you also Urantiavista, another compatriot from the Truthbook site.
Truthbook and UB reader friends.....you utterly waste your time here. It was a nice thought as it always is to attempt to share this good thing that you know you have with others.....but the "naysayers" here simply arn't interested.
There's nothing personal about it....no hard feelings.....they're just simply not interested.
You, we, have offered to strive with these nice folks for a few days and it's been somewhat less fun than a barrel of monkeys at the circus....and for your efforts you...we've been kicked in the teeth.
So unless you're some sort of glutton for punishment, perhaps we should wander over to the next village and proclaim the good news to a different crowd....just as Jesus instructed His apostles and deciples.
Any further here is wasting your time but hey.....you don't take orders from me. Keep banging your head into the wall here if ya want.

[McCulloch]

I did a little solar research. ....

I will share a bit of my rough calculations:

Code: Select all

Facts
radius of sun                6.96E+08	m
mass of sun                  2.00E+33	g
thickness of calcium layer	2.00E+06	m
surface area		           9.60E+06	m
ratio of calcium in the sun  1.90E-06

Calculations
solar volume                  1.41E+27	m³
surface area                  6.09E+18	m²
volume of calcium layer       5.84E+25	m³     surface area × thickness
average density of sun        1.42E+06	g/m³   mass / volume
ratio of calcium layer volume  4.14%       volume of calcium layer / volume of sun
mass of solar calcium         3.80E+27	g      mass of sun × ratio of calcium 
density of calcium layer      6.50E+01	g/m³   mass of solar calcium / volume of calcium layer

I used the code tag to get a fixed width font. It shows math better.
If the average density of the sun is not 21,779 times greater than the average density of an alleged calcium layer at the surface of the sun, then the scientific information given in the Urantia Book is flawed.

[McCulloch]

I too admire Martin Gardner.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9911/gardner.html

Nothing could persuade me to read every line of this monstrous mishmash of claptrap interspersed with puddles of pious platitudes, but I have perused it carefully enough to get the drift of its wild science-fiction themes..... Indeed it may be the largest, most fantastic chunk of channeled moonshine ever to be bound in one volume." (Notes of a Fringe-Watcher by Martin Gardner: The Great Urantia Mystery, in Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 1990, p. 124)

And from what I have already read of the Urantia Book and from its supporters, I have to concur with Gardner's assessment. So please, no more, "You have to read the whole book before you can appreciate it".

[Colter]

Following your logic should we read half of your post to form a concrete opinion of what your saying?

Ironically Gardners skeptical assessment of a book that he did not read has attracted many "now former Atheist to the light of reasonableness.

"The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts. If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit-born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine.

If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to embolden the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify, nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could be executed only by some entity of supermachine status.

If universe reality is only one vast machine, then man must be outside of the universe and apart from it in order to recognize such a fact and become conscious of the insight of such an evaluation.

If man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of self-conscious evaluation of one's self is never an attribute of a mere machine. A self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to mechanism. If materialism were a fact, there could be no self-conscious mechanist. It is also true that one must first be a moral person before one can perform immoral acts.

The very claim of materialism implies a supermaterial consciousness of the mind which presumes to assert such dogmas. A mechanism might deteriorate, but it could never progress. Machines do not think, create, dream, aspire, idealize, hunger for truth, or thirst for righteousness. They do not motivate their lives with the passion to serve other machines and to choose as their goal of eternal progression the sublime task of finding God and striving to be like him. Machines are never intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, ethical, moral, or spiritual.

Art proves that man is not mechanistic, but it does not prove that he is spiritually immortal. Art is mortal morontia, the intervening field between man,
the material, and man, the spiritual. Poetry is an effort to escape from material realities to spiritual values.

In a high civilization, art humanizes science, while in turn it is spiritualized by true religion--insight into spiritual and eternal values. Art represents the human and time-space evaluation of reality. Religion is the divine embrace of cosmic values and connotes eternal progression in spiritual ascension and expansion. The art of time is dangerous only when it becomes blind to the spirit standards of the divine patterns which eternity reflects as the reality shadows of time. True art is the effective manipulation of the material things of life; religion is the ennobling transformation of the material facts of life, and it never ceases in its spiritual evaluation of art.

How foolish to presume that an automaton could conceive a philosophy of automatism, and how ridiculous that it should presume to form such a concept of other and fellow automatons!

Any scientific interpretation of the material universe is valueless unless it provides due recognition for the scientist. No appreciation of art is genuine unless it accords recognition to the artist. No evaluation of morals is worth while unless it includes the moralist. No recognition of philosophy is edifying if it ignores the philosopher, and religion cannot exist without the real experience of the religionist who, in and through this very experience, is seeking to find God and to know him. Likewise is the universe of universes without significance apart from the I AM, the infinite God who made it and unceasingly manages it.

Mechanists--humanists--tend to drift with the material currents. Idealists and spiritists dare to use their oars with intelligence and vigor in order to modify the apparently purely material course of the energy streams.

Science lives by the mathematics of the mind; music expresses the tempo of the emotions. Religion is the spiritual rhythm of the soul in time-space harmony with the higher and eternal melody measurements of Infinity. Religious experience is something in human life which is truly supermathematical.

In language, an alphabet represents the mechanism of materialism, while the words expressive of the meaning of a thousand thoughts, grand ideas, and noble ideals--of love and hate, of cowardice and courage--represent the performances of mind within the scope defined by both material and spiritual law, directed by the assertion of the will of personality, and limited by the inherent situational endowment.

The universe is not like the laws, mechanisms, and the uniformities which the scientist discovers, and which he comes to regard as science, but rather like the curious, thinking, choosing, creative, combining, and discriminating scientist who thus observes universe phenomena and classifies the mathematical facts inherent in the mechanistic phases of the material side of creation. Neither is the universe like the art of the artist, but rather like the striving, dreaming, aspiring, and advancing artist who seeks to transcend the world of material things in an effort to achieve a spiritual goal.

The scientist, not science, perceives the reality of an evolving and advancing universe of energy and matter. The artist, not art, demonstrates the existence of the transient morontia world intervening between material existence and spiritual liberty. The religionist, not religion, proves the existence of the spirit realities and divine values which are to be encountered in the progress of eternity." Ub

But if you only read half my post you could still gain something

[Rob]

I too admire Martin Gardner.... And from what I have already read of the Urantia Book and from its supporters, I have to concur with Gardner's assessment. So please, no more, "You have to read the whole book before you can appreciate it".

e prepared to be challenged to support your opinions with objective evidence, reason and logic. It is called debate.

My Friend,

This is a debating forum. Evidence and facts are the meat of a debate, do you not agree? So are you saying McCullock, don't present facts and evidence? Now this is very interesting my friend, for consider the unfairness and implications of your position. On the one hand, you imply by your words, it is ok to use Gardner's work, even refer to it as an "in depth" investigation, but refuse to allow the evidence to be presented that refutes this claim. How interesting. I may add it runs 180 degrees counter to all your well reasoned principles and statements you have so far presented to Woody. To be be honest, I did not expect such an response from you.

I note you do not address a single factual statement, an iota of factual evidence, other than making the same logical mistake that Gardner did, and that is to judge something not on the merits of its own case, but on the behavior of those few happen to come to this site.

Now my friend, I respect Gardner too, but truth and facts are truth and facts, and unless you are going to say that facts cannot be presented against the assertion that Gardner "carefully" and "in depth" looked at the Urantia Book, which in itself would be an interesting turn of events for a debate forum, and one in which you have argued so consistently for the use of facts and evidence to support one's claims, then I most certainly will present the evidence that refutes this claim.

Tell me McCullock, why are you unwilling to look at the facts and truth? You ignored the first fact in the link to the paragraph on the Star Bethlehem that Gardner reviewed, and could not even get his facts straight, because in truth he never even read it. I uncovered in my honest critical examanation of his works, a mountain of similar examples in his "in depth" review. And I intend to present facts, supported by evidence, even the concurrence of a scienctist regarding his review of the section on Alfred Wegener and continental drift, one of the scientists by the way who founded plate tectonics (let me see McCullock, are you going to tell me I cannot present the work of a scientist refuting Gardner's claims, now that would be very interesting for a debate forum, wouldn't it?).

True and genuine inward certainty does not in the least fear outward analysis, nor does truth resent honest criticism. You should never forget that intolerance is the mask covering up the entertainment of secret doubts as to the trueness of one's belief. No man is at any time disturbed by his neighbor's attitude when he has perfect confidence in the truth of that which he wholeheartedly believes. Courage is the confidence of thoroughgoing honesty about those things which one professes to believe. Sincere men are unafraid of the critical examination of their true convictions and noble ideals."

Now my friend, does it really matter if the words above really were spoken by Jesus or not? Is not the spirit of the meaning and the value of their principles worth considering? After all, I sure would be proud of my children if they lived those values.

Now I have a question for you McCullock. I would like to know, in the context of debate, if you recognize the fact that "Gardner has misquoted the Urantia Book by adding information that was not in the original source and omitting information, the first sentence of the paragraph in question, which contradicts his own fallacious statement." A fact I remind you, that begrudgingly is admited by Gardner himself, when he says, "The writer is correct."

So for the record of the debate McCullock, do you acknowlege that fact?

[McCulloch]

Following your logic should we read half of your post to form a concrete opinion of what your saying?

Are you making the claim that I must read the entire Urantia Book in order to assess its validity? The whole Qu'ran to assess its validity? The whole New Testament to assess its validity? The whole Book of Mormon to asses its validity? Whew, I've got a lot of heavy reading ahead of me! Gee, maybe I should read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica and the Oxford English Dictionary as well before I can use them as valid information sources.

Ironically Gardners skeptical assessment of a book that he did not read has attracted many now former Atheist to the light of reasonableness.

Listing a few of them and their scientific credentials would be quite helpful at this point.

The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts. If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit-born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine.

Briefly, the unsupported claim that the existence of consciousness proves the existence of 'spirit' and disproves the materialist viewpoint.

If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to embolden the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify, nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could be executed only by some entity of supermachine status.

Repeating the false argument that if the materialist viewpoint is correct then humans are only automatons and consciousness would not be possible.

If universe reality is only one vast machine, then man must be outside of the universe and apart from it in order to recognize such a fact and become conscious of the insight of such an evaluation.

Either deep insight or complete BS. Hard to tell.

If man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of self-conscious evaluation of one's self is never an attribute of a mere machine. A self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to mechanism. If materialism were a fact, there could be no self-conscious mechanist. It is also true that one must first be a moral person before one can perform immoral acts.

Continues to build up the straw-man argument that materialists are devoid of consciousness and morals.

The very claim of materialism implies a supermaterial consciousness of the mind which presumes to assert such dogmas. A mechanism might deteriorate, but it could never progress. Machines do not think, create, dream, aspire, idealize, hunger for truth, or thirst for righteousness. They do not motivate their lives with the passion to serve other machines and to choose as their goal of eternal progression the sublime task of finding God and striving to be like him. Machines are never intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, ethical, moral, or spiritual.

More of the same. Rather unconvincing to me.

Art proves that man is not mechanistic, but it does not prove that he is spiritually immortal. Art is mortal morontia, the intervening field between man, the material, and man, the spiritual. Poetry is an effort to escape from material realities to spiritual values.

Art does not prove that the universe is not materialist. Is "morontia" another of those made up words in the Urantia Book?

In a high civilization, art humanizes science, while in turn it is spiritualized by true religion--insight into spiritual and eternal values. Art represents the human and time-space evaluation of reality. Religion is the divine embrace of cosmic values and connotes eternal progression in spiritual ascension and expansion. The art of time is dangerous only when it becomes blind to the spirit standards of the divine patterns which eternity reflects as the reality shadows of time. True art is the effective manipulation of the material things of life; religion is the ennobling transformation of the material facts of life, and it never ceases in its spiritual evaluation of art.

This looks to me like what Gardner calls "puddles of pious platitudes". It makes no sense to me.

How foolish to presume that an automaton could conceive a philosophy of automatism, and how ridiculous that it should presume to form such a concept of other and fellow automatons!

In a blinding flash of logic the authors of the Urantia Book knock down their own straw-man.

Any scientific interpretation of the material universe is valueless unless it provides due recognition for the scientist. No appreciation of art is genuine unless it accords recognition to the artist. No evaluation of morals is worth while unless it includes the moralist. No recognition of philosophy is edifying if it ignores the philosopher, and religion cannot exist without the real experience of the religionist who, in and through this very experience, is seeking to find God and to know him. Likewise is the universe of universes without significance apart from the I AM, the infinite God who made it and unceasingly manages it.

More puddles of pious platitudes.

Mechanists--humanists--tend to drift with the material currents. Idealists and spiritists dare to use their oars with intelligence and vigor in order to modify the apparently purely material course of the energy streams.

Unsupported assertion.

Science lives by the mathematics of the mind; music expresses the tempo of the emotions. Religion is the spiritual rhythm of the soul in time-space harmony with the higher and eternal melody measurements of Infinity. Religious experience is something in human life which is truly supermathematical.

puddles of pious platitudes

In language, an alphabet represents the mechanism of materialism, while the words expressive of the meaning of a thousand thoughts, grand ideas, and noble ideals--of love and hate, of cowardice and courage--represent the performances of mind within the scope defined by both material and spiritual law, directed by the assertion of the will of personality, and limited by the inherent situational endowment.

Yeah, so. ...

The universe is not like the laws, mechanisms, and the uniformities which the scientist discovers, and which he comes to regard as science, but rather like the curious, thinking, choosing, creative, combining, and discriminating scientist who thus observes universe phenomena and classifies the mathematical facts inherent in the mechanistic phases of the material side of creation. Neither is the universe like the art of the artist, but rather like the striving, dreaming, aspiring, and advancing artist who seeks to transcend the world of material things in an effort to achieve a spiritual goal.

pious platitudes

The scientist, not science, perceives the reality of an evolving and advancing universe of energy and matter. The artist, not art, demonstrates the existence of the transient morontia world intervening between material existence and spiritual liberty. The religionist, not religion, proves the existence of the spirit realities and divine values which are to be encountered in the progress of eternity.

But if you only read half my post you could still gain something

I read the whole thing. I fail to see how any of it has anything to do with the answer to the question for debate, which, if you have forgotten is, "Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?"

[Colter]

Following your logic should we read half of your post to form a concrete opinion of what your saying?

Are you making the claim that I must read the entire Urantia Book in order to assess its validity? The whole Qu'ran to assess its validity? The whole New Testament to assess its validity? The whole Book of Mormon to asses its validity? Whew, I've got a lot of heavy reading ahead of me! Gee, maybe I should read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica and the Oxford English Dictionary as well before I can use them as valid information sources.

Ironically Gardners skeptical assessment of a book that he did not read has attracted many now former Atheist to the light of reasonableness.

Listing a few of them and their scientific credentials would be quite helpful at this point.

The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts. If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit-born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine.

Briefly, the unsupported claim that the existence of consciousness proves the existence of 'spirit' and disproves the materialist viewpoint.

If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to embolden the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify, nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could be executed only by some entity of supermachine status.

Repeating the false argument that if the materialist viewpoint is correct then humans are only automatons and consciousness would not be possible.

If universe reality is only one vast machine, then man must be outside of the universe and apart from it in order to recognize such a fact and become conscious of the insight of such an evaluation.

Either deep insight or complete BS. Hard to tell.

If man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of self-conscious evaluation of one's self is never an attribute of a mere machine. A self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to mechanism. If materialism were a fact, there could be no self-conscious mechanist. It is also true that one must first be a moral person before one can perform immoral acts.

Continues to build up the straw-man argument that materialists are devoid of consciousness and morals.

The very claim of materialism implies a supermaterial consciousness of the mind which presumes to assert such dogmas. A mechanism might deteriorate, but it could never progress. Machines do not think, create, dream, aspire, idealize, hunger for truth, or thirst for righteousness. They do not motivate their lives with the passion to serve other machines and to choose as their goal of eternal progression the sublime task of finding God and striving to be like him. Machines are never intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, ethical, moral, or spiritual.

More of the same. Rather unconvincing to me.

Art proves that man is not mechanistic, but it does not prove that he is spiritually immortal. Art is mortal morontia, the intervening field between man, the material, and man, the spiritual. Poetry is an effort to escape from material realities to spiritual values.

Art does not prove that the universe is not materialist. Is "morontia" another of those made up words in the Urantia Book?

In a high civilization, art humanizes science, while in turn it is spiritualized by true religion--insight into spiritual and eternal values. Art represents the human and time-space evaluation of reality. Religion is the divine embrace of cosmic values and connotes eternal progression in spiritual ascension and expansion. The art of time is dangerous only when it becomes blind to the spirit standards of the divine patterns which eternity reflects as the reality shadows of time. True art is the effective manipulation of the material things of life; religion is the ennobling transformation of the material facts of life, and it never ceases in its spiritual evaluation of art.

This looks to me like what Gardner calls "puddles of pious platitudes". It makes no sense to me.

How foolish to presume that an automaton could conceive a philosophy of automatism, and how ridiculous that it should presume to form such a concept of other and fellow automatons!

In a blinding flash of logic the authors of the Urantia Book knock down their own straw-man.

Any scientific interpretation of the material universe is valueless unless it provides due recognition for the scientist. No appreciation of art is genuine unless it accords recognition to the artist. No evaluation of morals is worth while unless it includes the moralist. No recognition of philosophy is edifying if it ignores the philosopher, and religion cannot exist without the real experience of the religionist who, in and through this very experience, is seeking to find God and to know him. Likewise is the universe of universes without significance apart from the I AM, the infinite God who made it and unceasingly manages it.

More puddles of pious platitudes.

Mechanists--humanists--tend to drift with the material currents. Idealists and spiritists dare to use their oars with intelligence and vigor in order to modify the apparently purely material course of the energy streams.

Unsupported assertion.

Science lives by the mathematics of the mind; music expresses the tempo of the emotions. Religion is the spiritual rhythm of the soul in time-space harmony with the higher and eternal melody measurements of Infinity. Religious experience is something in human life which is truly supermathematical.

puddles of pious platitudes

In language, an alphabet represents the mechanism of materialism, while the words expressive of the meaning of a thousand thoughts, grand ideas, and noble ideals--of love and hate, of cowardice and courage--represent the performances of mind within the scope defined by both material and spiritual law, directed by the assertion of the will of personality, and limited by the inherent situational endowment.

Yeah, so. ...

The universe is not like the laws, mechanisms, and the uniformities which the scientist discovers, and which he comes to regard as science, but rather like the curious, thinking, choosing, creative, combining, and discriminating scientist who thus observes universe phenomena and classifies the mathematical facts inherent in the mechanistic phases of the material side of creation. Neither is the universe like the art of the artist, but rather like the striving, dreaming, aspiring, and advancing artist who seeks to transcend the world of material things in an effort to achieve a spiritual goal.

pious platitudes

The scientist, not science, perceives the reality of an evolving and advancing universe of energy and matter. The artist, not art, demonstrates the existence of the transient morontia world intervening between material existence and spiritual liberty. The religionist, not religion, proves the existence of the spirit realities and divine values which are to be encountered in the progress of eternity.

But if you only read half my post you could still gain something

I read the whole thing. I fail to see how any of it has anything to do with the answer to the question for debate, which, if you have forgotten is, "Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?"

Run Forrest, Run! bling bling bling bling.......

"What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic." UB

[Billurantia]

McCulloch,

You say:

And from what I have already read of the Urantia Book and from its supporters, I have to concur with Gardner's assessment. So please, no more, "You have to read the whole book before you can appreciate it".

By discussing this question at all, we acknowledge that we have powers of discernment. The Urantia Papers are not an easy read, and are even more difficult to comprehend in a single perusal. For those who consider themselves highly intelligent, I would suggest that you read the forward 3 or 4 times. The progression from a singly unified Deity to the level of the material creations is outlined. Perfection <-------->Imperfection. Completeness <--------> Incompleteness. The reciprocal nature of the Universe in its present age is presented.

It boils down to the question of is this or is this not a creation we inhabit? If you believe it is the result of some accidental events not backed by intelligence, then this book will always be the musings of the fearful to you.

If the proof is in the pudding and you will not eat the pudding but rely on someone else who also did not eat the pudding to evaluate the pudding based on a rumor about who devised the recipe for the pudding and refuse to consider the opinions of those who actually tasted the pudding, how valid is your opinion?

Why won't a simple sampling work?

I am reasonably sure that you have sampled foods that tasted very good the first time you ate them, but somehow began less and less relishing as future portions were consumed. It is also likely that you have tasted some foods that at first were not so appealing, but as you sampled more of them they actually became increasingly more appealing and continue to do so to this day.

By the way, I did read all of the texts you cited in order to fairly evaluate them.

[McCulloch]

This is a debating forum. Evidence and facts are the meat of a debate, do you not agree? So are you saying McCulloch, don't present facts and evidence? Now this is very interesting my friend, for consider the unfairness and implications of your position. On the one hand, you imply by your words, it is ok to use Gardner's work, even refer to it as an "in depth" investigation, but refuse to allow the evidence to be presented that refutes this claim. How interesting. I may add it runs 180 degrees counter to all your well reasoned principles and statements you have so far presented to Woody. To be be honest, I did not expect such a response from you.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that I agree with the poster who claimed that Gardner's work was either in depth or impartial. I was simply saying that my own first-hand impressions of the Urantia Book match Martin Gardner's. Please, present whatever facts and evidence you have that address the question for debate, "Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?"

I note you do not address a single factual statement, an iota of factual evidence, other than making the same logical mistake that Gardner did, and that is to judge something not on the merits of its own case, but on the behavior of those few happen to come to this site.

I was under the impression that those who claim that a source of information is valid had the burden of proof. I have, in this thread, addressed a few issues where I believe that the Urantia Book may be in error of fact. I would like to judge the validity of the Urantia Book in the same way as one would judge the validity of any other source of data. But no one will provide me with the credentials of the authors of the Urantia Book. No one will prove that the alleged extraplanetary authors even exist. No one will provide me with any expert testimony regarding the validity of the contents of the Urantia Book. Which reputable scientists cite the Urantia Book? Which historians?

Now my friend, I respect Gardner too, but truth and facts are truth and facts, and unless you are going to say that facts cannot be presented against the assertion that Gardner "carefully" and "in depth" looked at the Urantia Book, which in itself would be an interesting turn of events for a debate forum, and one in which you have argued so consistently for the use of facts and evidence to support one's claims, then I most certainly will present the evidence that refutes this claim.

As I said, I don't know if Gardner's review of the Urantia Book was either careful or in depth. Truly, it matters little. I did not raise Gartner's expose as evidence against the Urantia Book. I have more respect for Gartner's opinion that I do for the entirely anonymous and seemingly imaginary authors of the Urantia Book. I have read some of his essays, they tend to make sense. But, no, I will not reject the Urantia Book based only on his assessment.

Tell me McCulloch, why are you unwilling to look at the facts and truth? You ignored the first fact in the link to the paragraph on the Star Bethlehem that Gardner reviewed, and could not even get his facts straight, because in truth he never even read it. I uncovered in my honest critical examanation of his works, a mountain of similar examples in his "in depth" review. And I intend to present facts, supported by evidence, even the concurrence of a scienctist regarding his review of the section on Alfred Wegener and continental drift, one of the scientists by the way who founded plate tectonics (let me see McCulloch, are you going to tell me I cannot present the work of a scientist refuting Gardner's claims, now that would be very interesting for a debate forum, wouldn't it?).

Go ahead, knock yourself out. Disprove and discredit Gardner's review of the Urantia Book. Gardner's review was used in this thread as an argument against the UB, so arguments against Gardner are absolutely welcome.

True and genuine inward certainty does not in the least fear outward analysis, nor does truth resent honest criticism. You should never forget that intolerance is the mask covering up the entertainment of secret doubts as to the trueness of one's belief. No man is at any time disturbed by his neighbor's attitude when he has perfect confidence in the truth of that which he wholeheartedly believes. Courage is the confidence of thoroughgoing honesty about those things which one professes to believe. Sincere men are unafraid of the critical examination of their true convictions and noble ideals."

Now my friend, does it really matter if the words above really were spoken by Jesus or not? Is not the spirit of the meaning and the value of their principles worth considering? After all, I sure would be proud of my children if they lived those values.

Jesus seems to have changed his vocabulary since the time of his official biographers. However, the principles expressed in the quote are indeed noble.

Now I have a question for you McCulloch. I would like to know, in the context of debate, if you recognize the fact that "Gardner has misquoted the Urantia Book by adding information that was not in the original source and omitting information, the first sentence of the paragraph in question, which contradicts his own fallacious statement." A fact I remind you, that begrudgingly is admited by Gardner himself, when he says, "The writer is correct."
So for the record of the debate McCulloch, do you acknowlege that fact?

I neither acknowledge nor deny that Gardner has misquoted the Urantia Book. I have not read or reviewed the Gardner article in question nor compared it with the actual text of the Urantia Book. Perhaps you should ask the one who posted the Gardner evidence.

All I can acknowledge for you is that my own limited first hand subjective experience with the Urantia Book, so far, matches the quote from Gardner. This is not evidence, it is opinion. I have yet to see evidence that would tend to change that opinion.

[McCulloch]

What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic

Again, I fail to see how any of it has anything to do with the answer to the question for debate, which, if you have forgotten is, "Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?"